Gulf Runner, LLC v. SeaHunter, Inc.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Gulf Runner, LLC v. SeaHunter, Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:23-CV-20600-WILLIAMS/REID

GULF RUNNER, LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SEAHUNTER, INC.,

Defendant. ________________________

ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY HEARING

This matter is before the Court upon Defendant SeaHunter, Inc.’s request for a discovery hearing regarding Plaintiff Gulf Runner, LLC’s “ability to use/rely upon additional/new, significant, destructive and invasive testing on the subject motor vessel by its ‘rebuttal expert. . ..’” [ECF No. 62 at 1]. Defendant requests that the Court prohibit Plaintiff’s rebuttal expert “from using new testing to formulate his rebuttal opinion and use that to ‘rebut’ [Defendant’s] expert. . ..” [Id. at 6]. The Court heard argument from counsel at the February 5, 2025, Discovery Hearing and has considered all relevant authorities. As stated on the record, Defendant’s request is not a proper discovery dispute, and does not appear to fall under the purview of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. See Fleisher v. 1990 53’ Viking Sport Fishing Vessel named F-TROOP, USCG No. 1077134, No. 10-62530-CIV,

2011 WL 13154043

, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2011) (noting that admissibility, as opposed to discoverability, “constitutes a separate question.”); see also Woods v. Reeve,

2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6108

, at *10 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 12, 2023) (“[As the Magistrate Judge,] I have no authority to rule on what testimony may or may not come in at trial; that is the province of the presiding District Judge.”). Defendant essentially seeks the exclusion of Plaintiffs expert report and testimony at trial, which is better addressed in a Daubert motion or a motion in limine. Moreover, Defendant seeks to limit Plaintiffs expert discovery targeted to rebut Defendant’s own experts. Defendant mainly contends the discovery should have been conducted earlier in the case, however, the deadline for expert discovery has not yet passed. Therefore, at this juncture, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s request to limit Plaintiff's expert discovery is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of February 2025. ack i M. REID UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ce: US. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams; and All Counsel of Record

Reference

Status
Unknown